Physicists from MIT, the University of Vienna, and elsewhere have presented a strong demonstration of quantum entanglement even when vulnerability to the freedom-of-choice loophole is significantly restricted. Credit: Christine Daniloff/MIT

Quantum entanglement may appear to be closer to science fiction than anything in our physical reality. But according to the laws of quantum mechanics—a branch of physics that describes the world at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles—quantum entanglement, which Einstein once skeptically viewed as "spooky action at a distance," is, in fact, real.

Imagine two specks of dust at opposite ends of the universe, separated by several billion light years. Quantum theory predicts that, regardless of the vast distance separating them, these two particles can be entangled. That is, any measurement made on one will instantaneously convey information about the outcome of a future measurement on its partner. In that case, the outcomes of measurements on each member of the pair can become highly correlated.

If, instead, the universe behaves as Einstein imagined it should—with particles having their own, definite properties prior to measurement, and with local causes only capable of yielding local effects—then there should be an upper limit to the degree to which measurements on each member of the pair of particles could be correlated. Physicist John Bell quantified that upper limit, now known as "Bell's inequality," more than 50 years ago.

In numerous previous experiments, physicists have observed correlations between particles in excess of the limit set by Bell's inequality, which suggests that they are indeed entangled, just as predicted by quantum theory. But each such test has been subject to various "loopholes," scenarios that might account for the observed correlations even if the world were not governed by quantum mechanics.

Now, physicists from MIT, the University of Vienna, and elsewhere have addressed a loophole in tests of Bell's inequality, known as the freedom-of-choice loophole, and have presented a strong demonstration of quantum entanglement even when the vulnerability to this loophole is significantly restricted.

"The real estate left over for the skeptics of quantum mechanics has shrunk considerably," says David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and professor of physics at MIT. "We haven't gotten rid of it, but we've shrunk it down by 16 orders of magnitude."

A research team including Kaiser; Alan Guth, the Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT; Andrew Friedman, an MIT research associate; and colleagues from
the University of Vienna and elsewhere has published its results today in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Closing the door on quantum alternatives

The freedom-of-choice loophole refers to the idea that experimenters have total freedom in choosing their experimental setup, from the types of particles to entangle, to the measurements they choose to make on those particles. But what if there were some other factors or hidden variables correlated with the experimental setup, making the results appear to be quantumly entangled, when in fact they were the result of some nonquantum mechanism?

Physicists have attempted to address this loophole with extremely controlled experiments, in which they produce a pair of entangled photons from a single source, then send the photons to two different detectors and measure properties of each photon to determine their degree of correlation, or entanglement. To rule out the possibility that hidden variables may have influenced the results, researchers have used random number generators at each detector to decide what property of each photon to measure, in the split second between when the photon leaves the source and arrives at the detector.

But there is a chance, however slight, that hidden variables, or nonquantum influences, may affect a random number generator before it relays its split-second decision to the photon detector.

"At the heart of quantum entanglement is the high degree of correlations in the outcomes of measurements on these pairs [of particles]," Kaiser says. "But what if a skeptic or critic insisted these correlations weren't due to these particles acting in a fully quantum mechanical way? We want to address whether there is any other way that those correlations could have snuck in without our having noticed."

"Stars aligned"

In 2014, Kaiser, Friedman, and their colleague Jason Gallicchio (now a professor at Harvey Mudd College) proposed an experiment to use ancient photons from astronomical sources such as stars or quasars as "cosmic setting generators," rather than random number generators on Earth, to determine the measurements to be made on each entangled photon. Such cosmic light would be arriving at Earth from objects that are very far away—anywhere from dozens to billions of light years away. Thus, if some hidden variables were to interfere with the randomness of the choice of measurements, they would have had to have set those changes in motion before the time the light left the cosmic source, long before the experiment on Earth was conducted.

In this new paper, the researchers have demonstrated their idea experimentally for the first time. The team, including Professor Anton Zeilinger and his group at the

University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences, set up a source to produce highly entangled pairs of photons on the roof of a university laboratory in Vienna. In each experimental run, they shot the entangled photons out in opposite directions, toward detectors located in buildings several city blocks away—the Austrian National Bank and a second university building.

The researchers also set up telescopes at both detector sites and trained them on stars, the closest of which is about 600 light years away, which they had previously determined would send sufficient photons, or starlight, in their direction.

"On those nights, the stars aligned," Friedman says. "And with bright stars like these, the number of photons coming in can be like a firehose. So we have these very fast detectors that can register detections of cosmic photons on subnanosecond timescales."

"Out of whack" with Einstein

In the few microseconds before an entangled photon arrived at a detector, the researchers used each telescope to rapidly measure a property of an incoming stellar photon—in this case, whether its wavelength was redder or bluer than a particular reference wavelength. They then used this random property of the stellar photon, generated 600 years ago by its star, to determine what property of the incoming entangled photons to measure. In this case, red stellar photons signaled a detector to measure an entangled photon's polarization in a particular direction. A blue stellar photon would set the device to measure the polarization of the entangled particle along a different direction.

The team conducted two experiments, with each experimental run lasting only three minutes. In each case, the researchers measured about 100,000 pairs of entangled photons. They found that the polarization measurements of the photon pairs were highly correlated, well in excess of the bound set by Bell's inequality, in a way that is most easily explained by quantum mechanics.

"We find answers consistent with quantum mechanics to an enormously strong degree, and enormously out of whack with an Einstein-like prediction," Kaiser says.

The results represent improvements by 16 orders of magnitude over previous efforts to address the freedom-of-choice loophole.

"All previous experiments could have been subject to this weird loophole to account for the results microseconds before each experiment, versus our 600 years," Kaiser says. "So it's a difference of a millionth of a second versus 600 years' worth of seconds—16 orders of magnitude."

"This experiment pushes back the latest time at which the conspiracy could have started," Guth adds. "We're saying, in order for some crazy mechanism to simulate
quantum mechanics in our experiment, that mechanism had to have been in place 600 years ago to plan for our doing the experiment here today, and to have sent photons of just the right messages to end up reproducing the results of quantum mechanics. So it's very far-fetched."

There is also a second, equally far-fetched possibility, says Michael Hall, a senior research fellow at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia.

"When photons from the distant stars reach the devices that determine the measurement settings, it is possible that these devices act in some way to change the colors of the photons, in a way that is correlated with the laser producing the entanglement," says Hall, who was not involved in the work. "This would only require a 10-microsecond-old conspiracy between the devices and the laser. However, the idea that photons don't show their 'true colors' when detected would overturn all observational astronomy and basic electromagnetism."

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

What "entangled" the photons leaving the star 600 years ago? How did they know which photons were entangled to be able to sort out their differences, if any? Those missing details make this article seriously lacking to form a good understanding.

What "entangled" the photons leaving the star 600 years ago? How did they know which photons were entangled to be able to sort out their differences, if any? Those missing details make this article seriously lacking to form a good understanding.

Those starlight photons were not the entangled photons; they were merely used to trigger the measurement-property 'choice' via their detected blue/red characteristics. The actual entangled photons came from the lab-source, and it is THESE LAB photons' 'property' which is being measured/correlated according to what property was to be measured as determined by the starlight wavelength (blue/red). The starlight was merely a 'remote choice' device for the purposes of removing the choice from local situation when measuring the lab-sourced entangled photons. :)

Or it could be closer to home in the way the atmosphere bends light and makes certain photons hit the detector or not.

Yes, that same thing had occurred to me also. Moreover, I am still questioning the whole basis for the stochastic nature for determining the 'entanglement' aspect itself in any particular Bell experiment. By that, I mean, that IF entanglement was 'true', then ALL the photon-runs should BE correlated 100%. The use of percentages makes the whole question/conclusion meaningless and open to chance/systemic/methodology etc 'artifacts/conclusions'; since the entangled nature is either present or not. If it IS present in one 'run' then it should be present in ALL 'runs', and the stats should be 100% not the usual percentages depended upon as 'indicating' true overall. If you get my drift?

By that, I mean, that IF entanglement was 'true', then ALL the photon-runs should BE correlated 100%.

The difficulty is in detecting them with 100% certainty. There's noise in the system that interferes with the entangled photons, and you can't reasonably detect which photon was a pair to which because of uncertainties in timing and distance.

And fundamentally, when you measure something like the spin of a photon, it's not a property that is always going to be the same. If you put a photon in a box, it's not necessarily in there but just probably in there, likewise if you deliberately set the spin up and shoot the photon at a detector, it doesn't necessarily arrive there spin up - it's just very likely.

So as well in the correlation, even if the pair IS entangled they do not necessarily always end up measuring that way.

By that, I mean, that IF entanglement was 'true', then ALL the photon-runs should BE correlated 100%.

The difficulty is in detecting them with 100% certainty. There's noise in the system that interferes with the entangled photons, and you can't reasonably detect which photon was a pair to which because of uncertainties in timing and distance.....So as well in the correlation, even if the pair IS entangled they do not necessarily always end up measuring that way.

Yes, agreed. That makes it even more 'all over the place' insofar as stochastic methods/conclusions 'artifacts' go. Not only is the 'uncertainty factor affecting a certain percentage of 'runs', but also the actual property itself may not be 'showing' at point of measurements due to 'temporal' oscillations/uncertainties in 'hits'. IOW, naive dependence on simplistic statistical methodologies/analyses etc makes the whole exercise 'design' insufficient to 'handle' ALL relevant factors. :)

Well, to put it in simple terms: an individual photon may do as it well pleases. A hundred million photons are a hundred million times less likely to do so.

A systemic error would change from experiment to experiment, and a random error averages out. Rather, the choice loophole is about whether there exists a side channel through which the information about the entangled particles can travel so that regardless of the experiment it always gives the right answer. After all, that information would reach the experiment just as fast if not faster than the photons which are slowed down by the optical fiber.

Hence the use of old starlight to choose how the experiment is performed to rule out side channel interference.

The use of percentages makes the whole question/conclusion meaningless and open to chance/systemic/methodology etc 'artifacts/conclusions'; since the entangled nature is either present or not. If it IS present in one 'run' then it should be present in ALL 'runs', and the stats should be 100% not the usual percentages depended upon as 'indicating' true overall. If you get my drift?

Not finding any reference to percentages in the arxiv reference so I guess your question is just hypothetical. But if there were percentages you could compare the run with an identical run except using a local random number generator. Seems unfortunate.

@RealityCheck|q] ...IF entanglement was 'true', then ALL the photon-runs should BE correlated 100%.

This would be true if the settings (e.g. orientations) of two the detectors are carefully chosen. For arbitrary settings (as modeled in Bell's theorem), it is not so. See this wikipedia page, and the figure in it, to see what I mean: https://en.wikipe..._theorem

That is what I mean by naive/simplistic assumptions/methodologies being built-into such QM measurement/conclusion exercises. Recall the similar problems which Bicep2/Planck etc cosmological 'exercises' recently exposed in their own methodologies due to the complex nature of both known/unknown effects previously unsuspected/discarded when culling/discarding data which did not 'fit'.

Consider: The calculations in QM are all based on probability (stochastic); but the dataset is NOT 'complete' because of same uncertainties/noise you alluded to; ALSO because we don't know what instances were MISSED and so did not form part of the dataset/calculation at all.

IF we could include all the missed/unknown data, then maybe it would come to approx. 50-50...whence NO conclusion could be drawn re 'entanglement' bias in the dataset/setup/methodology/assumptions etc.

Such stats/exercises, subject to noise/uncertainty and missing/unknown data etc, are too naive/simplistic.

Please see, from my earlier response to KelDude, that I understood perfectly how/why the remotely emitted star photons was used as parameter-choice determinant for measurement of lab photons.

PS: RNP, Seeker2, please also see my post to Eikka; it clarifies the issues BEYOND the naive/simplistic assumptions/methodologies etc already known/used. I refer to things which current QM 'Bell' setups/experiments/methodlogies etc do NOT actually treat at all (even though all 'assume' they do, even when, as I pointed out, they do not)....and hence the results/concusions are not strictly based on complete dataset (because of discarded/unknown instances not even being included properly in the 'probability' stats/methodologies/weightings/fittings etc).

That's all I wanted to point out. I leave you to ponder implications of excluded-by-design (data/methodologies etc) of the unknowns/missed instances which would have otherwise affected results. :)

@RealityCheckYou clearly do not understand Bell's theorem and it's implications.

The theorem is derived from purely *classical* considerations. However, the classical inequalities it produces are VIOLATED by quantum systems. This has been demonstrated experimentally too many times to count. In other words, quantum systems CAN NOT be described by simple classical probabilities as you are trying to suggest.

In other words, your suggestion of "naive/simplistic assumptions/methodologies being built-into such QM measurement/conclusion exercises" is completely unfounded, and has been experimental refuted countless times.

I strongly suggest you learn a little about quantum mechanics before you start trying to sound authoritative.

Mate, you missed the subtle distinction between BELL-like exercises and the usual QM calculations/measurements methodologies and aims. The former is not a QM setup at all, but a classical setup in which some of the actual 'incidents' may be missed/discarded etc BY the very exercise/methodlogy/assumptions going into the Bell exercise/analysis etc. As for the latter, I am NOT addressing the QM approach to QM systems/probabilities which are inescapable because it isn't a classical exercise at all. The Bell exercise is subject to what I pointed out in classical terms; not involving the QM approach at all. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you to grasp on the first try; which leads you to assume things about what I meant etc which I didn't mean at all but you 'read' into it...hence your reply based on your 'reading bias' which leads you to miss my point? In any case, that is all I have to say at this juncture. I leave you/others to ponder at your own pace. :)

Pondering at my pace, which is about that of a snail, I would say the Bell exercise amounts to proving causality does not happen at the speed of light or less. Sorry, Albert, spooky action at a distance.

...Bell's theorem has been scrutinized by professional scientists. Are we to believe that YOU have seen something they have missed?

Funny, it's like all the recent PO articles/reviews/commentary (from mainstream itself no less) didn't happen! Or not read/remembered by those who should have learned the dangers of assuming that past mainstream 'groupthink' was the last word on something.

Haven't you learned from the flaws and traps exposed recently which previously led to the Bicep2, Inflation, distance-ladder etc etc 'groupthink' now being shown to be questioned/wrong?

This is what happens when otherwise intelligent minds 'outsource' their thinking/scrutiny to OTHERS just because they represent the mainstreamer 'groupthink' urban legends which may be just as wrong as can be.

Mate, think for yourself (which I cautioned in the case of Bicep2, but was ignored, and so the 'groupthink believers' here got egg on their faces).

@RealityCheckOK, you lost the argument, so you resort to obfuscation. I SHOULD ignore you, but the regurgitation of your previously debunked claims is too tempting.

Haven't you learned from the flaws and traps exposed recently which previously led to the Bicep2, Inflation, distance-ladder.....

BICEP2 required delicate analysis, ONE aspect of which was found to have had problems. However, the authors noted the potential difficulty in the ABSTRACT of the paper, so the issue was quickly resolved. The claim that YOU saw problems that the authors did not is PURE fabrication.

Your claims about inflation are also fiction. Inflation has always been a contentious theory, with both believers and non-believers. The fact that you found, and repeatedly misrepresented, a non-believer proves NOTHING except that you do not understand the scientific method.

What you think the problems with the distance ladder are I have no idea. I suspect that you have again misunderstood something.

Mate, you are starting to exhibit similar 'denial syndrome' afflicting global warming deniers. I expected better from you.

Seems you cannot bring yourself to admit Bicep2 was a fiasco brought about by a groupthinking 'team' convincing themselves that sloppy/self-interested exercise was an acceptable substitute for actual science methodology strictly applied.

If they were applying science methodology strictly, they would never have even contemplated making such announcement/claim in the first place; let alone 'standing by same' for so many months despite me/others pointing out the many assumptive, methodological, interpretive etc FLAWS which made the whole exercise/claims pseudoscience/publish-or-perish fiasco.

Re Inflation: Prof. Paul Steinhardt pointed out to colleagues how they have been treating "Inflation' as 'fact'; mostly by those depending on equally hypothetical Big Bang assumptions/methodologies/interpretations etc.

so you've decided to enlist your sock army to justify your false statements?

and this makes what you state correct how?

when you make a statement, it is opinion unless and only until you can provide unbiased unrelated supporting evidence to validate the claim

so when you make a statement again BICEP or any science - until you validate your claim with evidence then it is not science, it's opinion, and false if proven as such, as i've repeatedly done about your comments

and when you use pseudoscience or irrational vague statements that can't be substantiated, it's called libel, stupidity and a slew of other adjectives (and can be prosecuted under the law in cases of libel etc)

period

full stop

this makes 6,095 posts with no validationthat's a record even Zeph can't beat

What a whingeing hypocrite! You know perfectly well I do not 'play' in the feedback pages; nor do I have a "sockpuppet army" (because I always urge members to NOT 'play' in the feedback pages at all, since it has been corrupted by the likes of you, Ira, etc. gang of bot-voting dimwits more interested in ego-tripping 'games' and personal trolling than actual science/humanity discourse on its merits). You cry, lie, whine whenever some other member fed up with your gang's bot-voting stupidity starts to play you at your own feedback 'games'! If you weren't so stupid and malignant you would be funny, Stumpy. You just can't stomach the fact that mainstream articles/reviews/discoveries are confirming me correct all along. Stop making stupid/hypocrite 'noise'; just concentrate on science/humanity discourse; stop 'playing' your bot-voting games in the feedback pages; then fed-up members may not feel need to 'play in kind' against your silly 'games'.

I am probably the only one, but I miss Zephir-Skippy. Anybody hear from him lately? I hope nothing happen to him.

Oh yeah, I almost forget another thing. Zephir-Skippy knows 100 times more about science than Really-Skippy. They are both bat-doo-doo crazy, but at least Zephir-Skippy actually knows something about science.

Amazing. The Ira bot-voting ignoramus thinks "the jury is still out' on his dimwittedness. The jury was 'in' long ago, when he was forced to admit to his dimwittedness and lack of comprehension of subtle/complex science subject matter. But he still pretends to be innocent and knowing enough to spot real good science when he 'sees' it. Forget the times when he has been totally dimwitted and uncpmprehending while giving '5' to his bot-voting ignoramus troll gangmembers (Stumpy et al) even when I was correct all along and they incorrect. Pitiable sod. Can't defend his Stumpy pal from his own stupidity and hyocrisy, so now he just pretends to "know" even though the record proves otherwise. These 'tools' are corrupting the feedback pages; and discussions which they troll/bury with their peculiar brand of dimwitted hypocritical bot-voting trolling 'noise' that belies all the claims/accusations they 'ejaculate' like juvenile twits. Pitiable sods. Totally hypocrites.

you didn't post evidenceyou didn't link or reference anythingtherefore your post is trolling, baiting garbagehere's the thing: i provided facts that can be checked and validatedyou posted whiny cry-baby opinion that is proven false by my factsso...

reported

.

How you are today?

@Irabetter. trying to get rid of a migraine

I am probably the only one, but I miss Zephir-Skippy. Anybody hear from him lately?

i don't miss him but he has a reddit site he runs if ya want to catch up on his pseudosciencejust look up aether

at least Zephir-Skippy actually knows something about science

that is true - he knows far more than the RC idiot troll

they're both into pseudoscience but at least zephir has enough knowledge to make it funnyhell, rc can't even provide evidence from other people's stuff when he makes claims about them!LMFAOzeph would have

I feel sorry for you. That you should find it necessary (or even acceptable) to launch such anonymous attacks on somebody for expressing views that are, I assume, contrary to your own demonstrates a lack of integrity, confidence and almost certainly, education. It is also completely futile, since those that are actually interested in science care nothing for the silly rating system on this site.

because I always urge members to NOT 'play' in the feedback pages at all

But you are a dishonest person and so might say this and still do it.

Try hard and show at least a smidgen of intelligence and objective thinking for a change, mate. If I had been playing/sockpuppeting in threads/feedback pages, my (corrupted) rating would not be what it is, would it? :)

I agree with RNP; no-one with any nouse/integrity would take the corrupted feedback ratings here seriously, so I don't; which is why I don't vote therein. I leave the malicious trolls/ignoramuses to keep demonstrating their hypocrisy and stupidity for all to see. And since you (Ghost) and your Ira/Stumpy pals are the most active and persistently hypocritical "The Three Amigos" of the 'irrelevant Internet noise' idiots here and in the feedback pages, the Forum only needs to sit back and just watch your bot-voting 'gang' damn yourselves by your own words/actions.

That is your given name. You know my surname, so tell me your surname, unless you are ashamed of your family name, in which case the Forum will excuse you out of pity for your shame.

Nice try Cher. I am not stupid like you. (In which case the Forum will congratulate me for my smartness.)

What are you trying to say, Ira? You know my name because Stumpy used it in his insulting addressing of his posts. If you, Stumpy and Ghost don't tell us your full names, then the Forum can only assume you are anonymous stalkers and trolls on the internet forums; not only that, but you will be proving you are cowards and hypocrites ashamed of telling people your own full names. Are you ashamed of your family name? Do tell. :)

You know my name because Stumpy used it in his insulting addressing of his posts.

That is a good theory except it is wrong.

I know your name because some idiot who has delusions of being a great scientist got into a schizophrenic state one day and posted up his name and address and telephone number on the interweb calling him the Earthman Playhouse Club. The same idiot spend a whole year pointing peoples to go there on six or five forums.

It does not matter if you take him down because you are embarrassed how stupid it was. What happens on the interweb stays on the interweb. What, you was hoping you could make it go away? Like I said, you are really stupid.

Stumpy boasted about how to stalk people using the Internet. You and Ghost and he have stalked people here too. My name and address etc were posted by Stumpy a number of times, I haven't (because, as you say, I am not stupid. :))

Now that Stumpy the stalker has posted my personal details against site rules, you and Ghost have also jumped on his stalking bandwagon, unconscionably. But you don't divulge your own names so we can all see who is who whenever you stalk, insult and troll your victims. Only cowards and hypocrites, as well as stupid trolls, name their victims while themselves being too ashamed to name themselves. Are you ashamed of your own family name? Is that why you stalk anonymously? That behavior/hypocrisy do anything except compound your own shame. The Forum can see who is genuine poster on a science site, and who is just another gang of irrelevant noise internet stalkers and trolls.

@ Everybody. Really-Skippy was ashamed of how stupid he was and took down his Earthman Playhouse link. But that is no be problem. I got the super-duper CIA grade computer and can still see him.

Check again later this week. The payments system was changed; my automatic payments dropped out during the transfer to new system. Will be fixed this week.

So bad luck, Ira, you again lied to the forum, by attributing 'reasons' which were not true.

Never mind, you have been so wrong, lied about so many things/people while you/your pals stalk/troll here and elsewhere, that the Forum has become accustomed to your stupidity, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Nothing new.

Now, back to the point:

You, Stumpy and Ghost have (against site rules) used others' full name (I never posted it here). So, let's level the field; tell us your full names since you have no scruples about stalking and using my full name in open forum.

Why I got to wait for next week to have GREAT BIG FUN? I'll check him today, right now.

The Earthling Club presents a series of brief Explanatory Papers entitled... THE UNIVERSE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE & NOTHING BUT THE UNIVERSEConsistent with the ideas/concepts in the book: THEORY & WORKS (The Nature, Origin, Structure & Mechanics of Everything) by Samuel Fodera.Warning: These Papers published and distributed in hard-copy; and the required legal-deposit copies have been lodged with the relevant authorities.

And I did not have to pay anything for him. If you need help looking up some of your gobbledygook, just ask and I will help you.

The payments system was changed; my automatic payments dropped out during the transfer to new system.

PS @ Ira: What are you trying to say? That site is my own, so it must have my name as owner etc., by consumer law. But I don't push it at all on the forums. The only people who link/refer to it is the same trolls/stalkers (yourselves) who (against site rules) use others' full names in open forum here.

So, do tell. Are you so cowardly and hypocritical that you still refuse to tell us your full name so as to level the field on which you (so far anonymously) attack your stalking victims? Or is it your are ashamed of your family name; or that you yourself have brought so much shame upon same by your words/actions here and elsewhere? Don't keep twisting in the wind like that like a hanged man; just man up like a real live man and do tell the forum your full name just like you tell mine. :)

<4> Volumetrication FlawThese Realisations occur because fundamental relativities are infinitesimally unsettled (evidence PI etc.). This inherent flaw in the VSmatrix/Space processes means that volumetrication of direction is incomplete. Hence, flaw-related 'remainder' consequences will arise wherever the natural geometrical/mathematical operations in the 3-D Space substrate cannot execute to completion, and so fail to balance infinitesimally at all times and all places each and every intersection-point location for all the infinite totality of Direction lines-of-coincidence. In short, direction-volumetrication processes fail to close perfectly the omni-directional spheres (radial spread of direction lines-of-coincidence) effectively defining the fundamental geometrical/mathematical relativities among the totality of absolute points in the primary-vacuum Space substrate.

The payments system was changed; my automatic payments dropped out during the transfer to new system.

That's is too bad, I get him for free.

How does that old saying go?..."You get what you pay for." :)

Now stop wriggling, Ira; do tell the forum your full name like you like to tell mine. Go on, unless you are ashamed of it (perfectly understandable, given your words/actions to date here and elsewhere on the net). Make a clean breast of it, Ira; level the field, act like a real brave responsible grown up man, tell me your full name like you keep telling mine. :)

You are insane Cher. You can not bait me into being as stupid as you and post up personal information. All you are doing is putting the spotlight on how stupid you were when you let your mental delusions run wild and thought it would be a good thing to put up the interweb page to showcase your mad rambling.

Naturally, a bot-voting ignoramus who admits to not comprehending scientific/logical subtleties/complexities wouldn't understand this; but let's give it a try anyway, just in case his bot-brain wakes up to reality for a minute:

New ideas sometimes require re-phrasing of old terminologies/coining of new terminology. This is what has happened in science throughout history. But you, a self-admitted Ira bot-voting trolling nitwit, haven't yet twigged to that fact.

Moreover, any subject-savvy reader would recognize that NEW and COMPLETE theory's explanatory terminology has corresponding counterparts in the current Quantum/cosmological orthodoxy terminology.....and that, if they are really perspicacious, they will further see that in the REALITY-based TOE context, my rephrasing/coining of terminology is more appropriate and consistent than in any current 'partial' theories extant, be they mainstream or other.

You are insane Cher. You can not bait me into being as stupid as you and post up personal information. All you are doing is putting the spotlight on how stupid you were when you let your mental delusions run wild and thought it would be a good thing to put up the interweb page to showcase your mad rambling.

Now now, mate, don't be even more stupid than you already have been. No-one has to 'bait you into being stupid", you were already 'there' long ago, without any 'help' from anyone. You're a 'self-made' bot-voting ignoramus troll.

You're also a cowardly hypocrite who will stalk, post the full name of, his victims, but will not put his own full name to his crap.

Are you that far gone to shame, dishonesty, Ira, that you think the forum cannot see your own failings and malice?

If you have no compunction in stalking, naming others, at least do the grown up brave-man thing....tell us your full name. Go on, Ira; be brave/honest for once. :)

New ideas sometimes require re-phrasing of old terminologies/coining of new terminology.

I am glad to hear you say that because I ran into something I was hoping you would explain to me.

<5> Non-Spinners Go BustNON-SPINNING Black Shells can sporadically 'puff out' minor excesses of G-I Fluid during gentle 'feeding' or constructive collisions with smaller shells etc.Their inevitable explosion can thus be deferred long enough to allow an occassional very lucky slow-/non-spinning Shell to attain still-impressive Astronomical sizes containing millions of times the sink-matter content within our local 'observable universe' volume. But they are living on borrowed time until a major excess of G-I Fluid occurs which ad hoc/inadequate jets cannot 'relieve' quickly enough.

Where you come up with that one Cher? It sounds like something what will happen to you if you are foolish enough to eat two big helpings at one of ol man Boucheron's family boucheries.

Where you come up with that one Cher? It sounds like something what will happen to you if you are foolish enough to eat two big helpings at one of ol man Boucheron's family boucheries.

The term "cast pearls before swine' comes to mind when contemplating the abject insensibility and incomprehension that must make you miss the context and import of what you read, Ira. That comment/attitude shows precisely your 'level' of approach to comprehending what you read. As that test you sat for showed, your dog is more intelligent and comprehending than your own self-made bot-voting ignoramus 'swine' of a 'mind'.

Stop twisting in the wind, Ira; tell your full name, since you know mine.

Not ashamed of your family name, are you? Or is it your family will be ashamed at what you have brought to it by your cowardly malignant hypocritical bot-voting ignoramus words/actions?

Be brave, honest for once, Ira; attach full name and 'own' your 'work', as others 'own' theirs. :)

maybe you can file a lawsuit like mr STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam? when you do, file for discovery and subpoena the records for PO - maybe you can actually read a map, unlike gracie

Now that Stumpy the stalker has posted my personal details against site rules

show me where it says thati just checked - it doesn't say itand YOU posted the eirthling club, and referenced it at SciForums, you idiot! LMFAO

But I don't push it at all on the forums

the internet never forgets - all you need to do is post it ONCEand once is all it tookonce timeand you've done that at more than one site - and i know it for a fact, because that is where i found it - and verified it, along with your logged IP address

this is called an implied threat and can be used in court as it's published publicly on a free access public site with no right to privacy, and now archived, insuring there is a record

for your information, your nation has laws against that - and i've linked those sites and information to you in the past

there are also laws in your nation against the following:

tell your full name

bullying for the sake of DOXing is a crime in your nation, and the continual posting of requirements for personal information with the implied threat makes your crime a felony, if i read your laws correct

@ Everybody. Really-Skippy was ashamed of how stupid he was and took down his Earthman Playhouse link. But that is no be problem. I got the super-duper CIA grade computer and can still see him.

considering the crap that was posted there, i would have taken it down too

... of course, we can't rule out his family or the local law enforcement/gov't agents removing the site to protect the dignity of the family and nation

Hooyeei I must be doing something right. I got a fan club me. Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippys

yeah, ME TOO!i know i'm doing something right when ol-fedora head breaks out the socks!you should see his attempts to get back into the SciForums site that prove moderation works!those were absolutely hilarious - apparently he doesn't comprehend what an IP ban means!LOL

so @Ira!where can i sign up for your fan club like fedora head?do ya have a super-duper maths free web page too?ROTFLMFAO

Why do we have to put up with these adolescent vandals here to offend others?

Because they are nice peoples at physorg that provide the only place that lets you make 15,000 plus posts that are silly vacuous trite banal and just plain goofy without banning you. If you want something a little more structured clean up your act and go to a moderated forum.

What I mean glam-Skippy is YOU are the worst offender and have been since you showed up. This is how it was before you got here, and this is how it will be when you leave. And it is the only place you can do what you do so quit whining and show a little gratitude, eh? Laissez les bons temps rouler P'tit Boug. (That's coonass for: You might as well not take your self too serious here Little Boy, nobody else is going to either.)

"Demanding something from someone you are currently insulting is probably not the best way to get what you want." - first grade.

Gave your name out huh, stupid move.

If the name Uncle Ira isn't enough for you, then change your expectations.

Quid pro quo, mate. They are the ones who (against site rules) divulged my full name here, not me. Now they are too cowardly, hypocritical and ashamed (of themselves and of their family names) to 'own' their insults and trolling/bot-voting behavior/record here. What does that say to any fairminded member/observer of this forum, mate? As for 'expectations', these have all been met long ago; and continue to be met, for as long as these cowardly, hypocritical, bot-voting internet dummies evade the quid pro quo of telling us THEIR FULL names; since they know/divulged mine. Are you being fairminded and objective, Estevan57; or are you going to be part of the Stumpy. Ira, Ghost bot-voting dummies 'problem'?

"Demanding something from someone you are currently insulting is probably not the best way to get what you want." - first grade. Still applies.

I don't think you are using quid pro quo correctly. When they say "No, I won't be that stupid.", there is by definition, no quid pro quo. An expectation on your part doesn't make a mutual consideration.

Call me what you want, group me with whomever you choose, I believe you are a ninny either way. There, I called you a name, now send me money.I have expectations too. Quid Pro Quo, Bro?

"Demanding something from someone you are currently insulting is probably not the best way to get what you want." - first grade. Still applies.

I don't think you are using quid pro quo correctly. When they say "No, I won't be that stupid.", there is by definition, no quid pro quo. An expectation on your part doesn't make a mutual consideration.

Call me what you want, group me with whomever you choose, I believe you are a ninny either way. There, I called you a name, now send me money.

You're condoning their behavior of stalking, revealing user's real full names, insulting and lying and bot-voting on a science site? Why not admit you have no scruples at all; since you chose to ignore that it was they who stalked/divulged my full name, not me. Not only that, but you compound your own contribution to that 'problem' by attacking their victim instead of them, the perpetrators. Get your head, facts and ethics straight before you continue, mate. :)

They are the ones who (against site rules) divulged my full name here, not me

uh...still can't find that "rule" on the siteperhaps you could link it?

also note: you gave your name on various other sites when you linked your BS earthling club pseudoscience garbage

the internet never forgets

if you don't like it, feel free to talk to your lawyerswhile you are at it, you can file for discoveryof course, that opens you up to litigation as well ....

maybe you can "team up" with STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam for your litigation?then you can share info - he has a map to my house but can't read it, so maybe between the two of you then you could combine resources and make it almost, but not quite a whole brain cell

false claim (lie)you've perhaps been in "some" piney woods in my state, but you have not been in my piney woods because there is no reason for you to be here other than to hunt (of which you're a fervently against)

there is nothing around or nearby

I came home depressed.

you don't like nature?huh!

You can choose to continue your adolescent abuse and name-calling

1- it's not name calling if it's proven to be true - it's a LABEL. you know, like your label of stolen valor2- you're worse than i am

we could talk science

i've tried this with you - you lie and you can't understand ityou even keep saying you charge your EV at night with solar panels dispute having been proven wrong with your own utility company and car manufacturer

Please stop your irrelevant noise. If you can't discuss the actual science topic, then just observe the discussions and learn. All else is sheer distraction at a time when humanity needs all the original/better ideas and co-operative advancement in science and humanity discourse. Don't be a drag on objective discourse/understanding by carrying on personal feuds. Stop addressing your posts in so juvenile and antagonistic way. Be polite, fairminded, and stick to the science topic not the person/source (you now know what can happen when one outsources their thinking and beliefs to other person/source). Just address the topic; make your own arguments politely and without malice or personal ego-tripping/bot-voting, stalking, trolling tactics which only bring shame on all science/humanity respecting principles and goals. Thanks. :)

Now, have you anything to add to the discussion re issues raised about the Bell's test/results etc? If so, do so at your pleasure. :)

6112 posts later and we still haven't gotten you to actually produce the science that you claim to have spotted that no other physicist has

until you actually produce those 4 fatal and 4 other flaws (and stop attempting to generate false interest in your stupidity with your sock army) then i will simply suggest others report all your posts where there is no content

pretty much like all the above posts and all the previous 6112 posts where you still, to date, can't even link to or quote where you proved yourself regarding your libelous false claims

@RealityCheckYour use of sock puppets is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. If the only way you can achieve a feeling of self-worth is by such blatantly dishonest behaviour then you have a MAJOR problem.

You do realize that your votes are completely irrelevant, and only serve to convince anybody that cares to look that you are dishonest and a charlatan.

You should note that tracing your activity with your sock puppets is easy - the same horde down voting people that disagree with you and up voting your posts in at least three articles that I can find in the last few months.

You are a coward, a fraud and lack any kind of honour. PLEASE, prove me right by continuing your attack.

Is THIS how easy it is for the Stumpy liar/troll gang to manipulate your 'beliefs'? If you checked with the PO admin/mods you'd probably find I am one of the very few who does NOT employ sockpuppet armies. Heck, I don't even vote in the feedback pages at all! You KNOW this; yet you prefer to 'believe' what you WANT to believe because you want to suck up to the troll gang who is sabotaging/framing/bot-voting and sock-puppeting to beat all heck?

What's WRONG with your mind, mate, that you would so readily believe UNTRUTHS about me rather than admit the evidence that confirms ME to be the most independent, objective, honest researcher/commenter here?

I was similarly sabotaged, trolled and lied about over at Sciforums, most recently by "paddoby" and the gang he ran with there. But NOW the admin/mods have FINALLY realized that it was paddoboy and that gang (included Stumpy) that were the trolls and sockpuppeteers that got victims banned.

It's obvious that someone (I don't know who) has had enough of the usual bot-voting gang, and has started playing their game. The only surprise is that it hasn't happened before now. No, there is another surprise: that the usual bot-voting gang is now whining about it! Seems a bit lame, doesn't it? Hypocritical, even, for trolling/bot-voting gang to complain when someone else plays them at their own game. Pathetic, really. It only proves how these twerps think they are the only ones with the right to 'play' games which sabotage feedback and discussions. Pathetic bullies/losers like that are always the first to cry 'mummy' when they are confronted with the same tactics they employ against their helpless victims. Cowards and bullies are ruining the forums, and they exploit naive 'believers' to either join their gangs or become victims of same.

Be brave. Resist these bot-voting trolling gangs. Think, act for yourselves, always. Good luck and good thinking. :)

E-mail the story

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.